- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 16:49:20 +1000
- To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2 Jul 2014, at 4:26 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi there, > > should we say something about the case where a HEADERS frame containing trailing header fields contains pseudo-headers such as ":status"? > > Allowed? Forbidden? Bad idea? My .02 - probably, although <http://httpwg.github.io/specs/rfc7230.html#chunked.trailer.part> says: > A sender must not generate a trailer that contains a field necessary for message framing (e.g., Transfer-Encoding and Content-Length), routing (e.g., Host), request modifiers (e.g., controls and conditionals in Section 5 of [RFC7231]), authentication (e.g., see [RFC7235]and [RFC6265]), response control data (e.g., see Section 7.1 of [RFC7231]), or determining how to process the payload (e.g., Content-Encoding, Content-Type, Content-Range, and Trailer). ... which kind of already goes there. Maybe just note that they fall under that requirement? -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 06:49:47 UTC